Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

This is hardly the same case as Clinton where he said/she said. ...

It's lying for everyone. The only question is whether or not the lie rises to the level of a crime; or if the Gov't feels that the lie is to cover up a larger crime.

Cycloptichorn

There have now been 5 witnesses from the prosecution who have testified that Libby knew about Plame before he told the GJ he did; I haven't found Wells' attempts to impeach their memories to be entirely convincing. Remember that even if one or two witnesses are not convincing to the jury, just one other would be enough to pin the case on Libby.

Cycloptichorn

But, Fitzgerald hasn't been tasked with going after Wilson for anything.

It isn't normal to go after people for lying; if it wasn't for the fact that Plame got outed, the case never would have been referred to the DoJ at all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There have now been 5 witnesses from the prosecution who have testified that Libby knew about Plame before he told the GJ he did; I haven't found Wells' attempts to impeach their memories to be entirely convincing. Remember that even if one or two witnesses are not convincing to the jury, just one other would be enough to pin the case on Libby.

Cycloptichorn

I think the larger issue is what effect has the impeaching of the witnesses memories had on a jury that is looking at convicting a man whose defense appears to be faulty memory. The impeachment might have more traction than you think, even if it doesn't dissuade the jury from believing the underlying fact of the timing of when Libby knew about Plame.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, Fitzgerald hasn't been tasked with going after Wilson for anything.

It isn't normal to go after people for lying; if it wasn't for the fact that Plame got outed, the case never would have been referred to the DoJ at all.

Cycloptichorn

I realize that, but it is unfortunate because I think it was a "setup" from the very beginning, and I think the Wilsons, especially Joe, was at the bottom of the whole setup.

Where is your evidence for the reverse? It is more of a witch hunt than anything else, and why not hunt for different witches. After all, to start out with, why would Wilson go to Niger for no pay, come back with no new information, and then start writing hit pieces that he found out something that he did not? He wrote more in the newspaper than he wrote for the government, for whom he supposedly did the work. He wrote no report, cyclops. The guy is phony.

Forget it, cyclops, if you are too dense to get it. Its old ground to plow. Now we sit here prosecuting a man for not remembering accurately who he told what about a crime that has never been claimed to be a crime.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There have now been 5 witnesses from the prosecution who have testified that Libby knew about Plame before he told the GJ he did; I haven't found Wells' attempts to impeach their memories to be entirely convincing. Remember that even if one or two witnesses are not convincing to the jury, just one other would be enough to pin the case on Libby.

Cycloptichorn

I think the larger issue is what effect has the impeaching of the witnesses memories had on a jury that is looking at convicting a man whose defense appears to be faulty memory. The impeachment might have more traction than you think, even if it doesn't dissuade the jury from believing the underlying fact of the timing of when Libby knew about Plame.

Where is your evidence for the reverse? It is more of a witch hunt than anything else, and why not hunt for different witches. After all, to start out with, why would Wilson go to Niger for no pay, come back with no new information, and then start writing hit pieces that he found out something that he did not? He wrote more in the newspaper than he wrote for the government, for whom he supposedly did the work. He wrote no report, cyclops. The guy is phony.

Forget it, cyclops, if you are too dense to get it. Its old ground to plow. Now we sit here prosecuting a man for not remembering accurately who he told what about a crime that has never been claimed to be a crime.

Okie, you are correct that it is not normal to expose the ID of covert CIA agents. That makes this case special.

BTW, how could Wilson have set up Libby?

Yeah, Wilson is a phoney and the testimony about the WH response to him and why they said the 16 words shouldn't have been there are all a lie.

okie, the WH responded by forcing Tenet to take the blame for the words. The testimony under oath in this case points to that. Are you accusing WH people of lying under oath? The testimony makes it much clearer why Tenet got his medal of freedom, willing to fall on his sword for Caeser even though he wasn't at fault.